111–120 of 364 posts
If you go to college and do an internship or research fellowship each summer, you will come out with "3 years" of experience.
Can you actually do that/do people do that? E.g., if someone did a software engineering internship for at least one semester every year of their college (4 years), can they count those years as field/industry experience? Albeit not full 4, but 2-3 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to have had some level of passion to bother learning about it. It takes time to learn a topic, that's a form of passion - a drive. That's not to say you have to burn all hours on it tho. Which I think is what you're assuming there. That's honestly somewhat unhealthy and only super passionate people (and lucky ones at that) can do that for any length of time.
Passion requires enthusiasim, not merely drive.
Do we need more evidence that "Entry-Level" means "poorly paid"?
To be fair, I think even the senior levels aren't exactly well paid. According to https://taketheexit.de/ 55% of developers feel heavily underpaid and that's something I can believe easily.
I recently doubled my salary, and I still feel underpaid. In reality, I earn above median wage for my age and experience, and live a comfortable life. But we can always do with more cash.
Is this because it has become too easy to apply for jobs? Should there be a stronger barrier to even apply to something (ie. take this automated test to apply...)?
Won't the market sort out whatever this is? Is there a specific unfair mechanism at play that would prevent supply and demand from finding its balance?
Disclaimer: I use no data, only going off of personal experience and friend circle anecdotes to create a theory. The balance is that in some ways, we have economy-wide collusion-by-default to keep wages artificially low. I know this sounds ridiculous, but I think we've hit the point of increasing returns on job growth depression. When one looks at the rate of underemployment and the employment rate writ large, it see…
Do we need more evidence that "Entry-Level" means "poorly paid"?
I personally think there two issues here: a) Expectations of 'Entry-level' actually being greater than 'junior/apprentice' b) Mentors not part of the role Both of these issues have arisen from a lack of willingness to have a long-term view and wanting immediate ROI, which I imagine has come about from the perceived view that staff don't stick around anyway. Set up proper trainee/cadet/apprentice programs, provide men…
And that's because of the decades of employers destroying the relationship between them and labor. I'm never going to see a pension, and there are almost no more apprenticeships. Why should I as an employee invest in my company if the company treats me as a replaceable cog.
The lack of employee loyalty can be directly linked to the Reagan-esque destruction of the labor movement, IMO. I have to watch out for myself, and therefore if push comes to shove, my needs are more important than the company's.
If you go to college and do an internship or research fellowship each summer, you will come out with "3 years" of experience.
Is it not mandatory for engineering/CS? I had to do 2 internships for my bachelors, and 1 for my masters.
In New Zealand it's mandatory for Software Engineering (and other engineering), but not for Computer Science, as it's a science degree.
When companies say 'entry-level', they seem to be referring to around 2-3 years of working experience. Not just college + internships, but actual professional experience. It's an extremely silly market to be in right now if you're a fresh grad.
All this talk about passion or numbers aside, I've had the opportunity to experience things from the other side and see how many senior-level developers with 10+ years of experience couldn't write an if-statement in their choice of language to save their lives, or even elaborate on basic design choices/decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>without any personal interest / passion in technology Can I not work in tech without being passionate?
You have to have had some level of passion to bother learning about it. It takes time to learn a topic, that's a form of passion - a drive. That's not to say you have to burn all hours on it tho. Which I think is what you're assuming there. That's honestly somewhat unhealthy and only super passionate people (and lucky ones at that) can do that for any length of time.
One requires motivation, but that motivation does not necessarily have to be interested or passion.